When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died 11 days ago at a West Texas ranch, he was among high-ranking members of an exclusive fraternity for hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus, an Austrian society that dates back to the 1600s.

After Scalia’s death Feb. 13, the names of the 35 other guests at the remote resort, along with details about Scalia’s connection to the hunters, have remained largely unknown. A review of public records shows that some of the men who were with Scalia at the ranch are connected through the International Order of St. Hubertus, whose members gathered at least once before at the same ranch for a celebratory weekend.

Members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures,” according to the group’s website. Some hold titles, such as Grand Master, Prior and Knight Grand Officer. The Order’s name is in honor of Hubert, the patron saint of hunters and fishermen.

Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John Poindexter and C. Allen Foster, a prominent Washington lawyer who traveled to the ranch with Scalia by private plane, hold leadership positions within the Order. It is unclear what, if any, official association Scalia had with the group.

“There is nothing I can add to your observation that among my many guests at Cibolo Creek Ranch over the years some members of the International Order of St. Hubertus have been numbered,” Poindexter said in an email. “I am aware of no connection between that organization and Justice Scalia.”

An attorney for the Scalia family did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Two other private planes that landed at the ranch for the weekend are linked to two men who have held leadership positions with the Texas chapter of the Order, according to a review of state business filings and flight records from the airport.

After Scalia’s death, Poindexter told reporters that he met Scalia at a “sports group” gathering in Washington. The U.S. chapter of the International Order of St. Hubertus lists a suite on M Street NW in the District as its headquarters, although the address is only a mailbox in a United Parcel Service store.

The International Order of St. Hubertus, according to its website, is a “true knightly order in the historical tradition.” In 1695, Count Franz Anton von Sporck founded the society in Bohemia, which is in modern-day Czech Republic.

The group’s Grand Master is “His Imperial Highness Istvan von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria,” according to the Order’s website. The next gathering for “Ordensbrothers” and guests is an “investiture” March 10 in Charleston, S.C.

The society’s U.S. chapter launched in 1966 at the famous Bohemian Club in San Francisco, which is associated with the all-male Bohemian Grove — one of the most well-known secret societies in the country.

In 2010, Poindexter hosted a group of 53 members of the Houston chapter of the International Order of St. Hubertus at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, according to a Houston society publication. A number of members from Mexico were also part of the ranch festivities that included “three days of organized shoots and ‘gala’ lunches and dinners.”

Poindexter told CultureMap Houston that some of the guests dressed in “traditional European shooting attire for the boxed bird shoot competition” and for the shooting of pheasants and chukar, a type of partridge.

For the hunting weekend earlier this month, Poindexter told The Washington Post that Scalia traveled to Houston with his friend and U.S. marshals, who provide security for Supreme Court justices. The Post obtained a Presidio County Sheriff’s Office report that named Foster as Scalia’s close friend on the trip.

Sheriff Danny Dominguez confirmed that a photograph of Washington lawyer C. Allen Foster is the same man he interviewed at the ranch the day of Scalia’s death.

From Houston, Scalia and Foster chartered a plane without the marshals to the Cibolo Creek Ranch airstrip. In a statement after Scalia died, the U.S. Marshals Service said that Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch.

The friend, Louisiana-born Foster, is a lawyer with the Washington firm Whiteford, Taylor & Preston. He is also known for his passion for hunting and is a former spokesman for the hunting group Safari Club.

In 2006, Foster was featured in The Post when he celebrated his 65th birthday with a six-day celebration in the Czech Republic. He flew his family and 40 Washington friends there to stay in Moravia’s Zidlochovice, a baroque castle and hunting park. The birthday bash included “tours of the Czech countryside, wine tasting, wild boar and mouflon (wild sheep) hunts, classic dance instruction and a masked costume ball.”

A secretary at Foster’s law firm said he is traveling in Argentina. The firm’s director of marketing, Mindee L. Mosher, said Foster was traveling and she would try to contact him. A woman answering a phone associated with Foster hung up when asked for comment.

Planes owned by Wallace “Happy” Rogers III and the company of A.J. Lewis III left from San Antonio and arrived at the ranch just after noon Feb. 12. The planes departed the ranch about 30 minutes apart Feb. 14, according to flight records provided to The Post by FlightAware.

Rogers owns the Buckhorn Saloon and Museum in San Antonio. He has donated $65,000 to Republican candidates since 2008. Lewis is the owner of a restaurant supplier company, also based in San Antonio. He has given $3,500 to GOP candidates since 2007.

Rogers and Lewis have both served as prior officers in the Texas chapter of the International Order of St. Hubertus, according to Texas business records. Rogers spoke to a Post reporter briefly on the phone and confirmed that he was at the ranch the weekend of Scalia’s death, He declined to comment further.

Lewis did not respond to several attempts for comment.

The Presidio County Sheriff’s Office released an incident report to The Post on Tuesday that revealed Foster’s name as Scalia’s traveling companion and provided details about the discovery of his body.

Poindexter and Foster told the sheriff that Scalia had traveled to Texas the day before to go hunting. Poindexter told the sheriff that they “had supper and talked for a while” that evening.

Scalia “said that he was tired and was going to his room for the night,” the sheriff wrote in his report.

When Scalia didn’t show up for breakfast that morning, Poindexter knocked on his door and eventually went in and found the Justice dead in his bed, Poindexter said.

Law enforcement officials told The Post that they had no knowledge of the International Order of St. Hubertus or its connection to Poindexter and ranch guests. The officials said the FBI had declined to investigate Scalia’s death when they were told by the marshals that he died from natural causes.

Alice Crites in Washington and Eva Ruth Moravec in San Antonio contributed to this report.

The death of JusticeAntonin Scaliahas left a power vacuum within the judicial branch of our government, which will be crucial in critical decisions for the considerable future. The GOP is determined to stonewall an Obama nominee, who would certainly cause SCOTUS to lean far to the left.

TheWhite Househas said that should the Senate not take up the issue of an Obama nominee, it would be derelict in its duty, but Senate Republicans would be unlikely to confirm any nominee Obama would choose.

However, Republicans are fighting the White House with … the White House.

In 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden, now Obama’s vice president, argued on the Senate floor that if there were to be a supreme court vacancy, it should not be filled until after that year’s election.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on the Internet radio show WBTM, “We Become The Media,” is 33 million people saying no to their leaders. In Egypt, as a result, Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office.

Vallely, the founder ofStand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, has called for a massive march on Washington.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining city on the hill when the electoral process is “known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult.

“I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

Processes such as impeachment won’t be employed, he said.

Pointing to Egypt, he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself, and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he said.

Legislation might be needed, he added, to create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws” should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.'”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Turley has representedmembers of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turleywas appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reportedthat it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

A Video Of Joe Biden Just Surfaced That Changes Everything about SCOTUS Appointment

Ever since the passing of Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, Democrat leaders in Washington D.C. have been advocating Obama do something to take care of the now vacant seat Scalia once held. Republicans have argued vociferously they would resist any nomination made by the President, while Democrats say it is the responsibility of the President to make an appointment for the vacancy ASAP.

Even Vice President Joe Biden has made it clear he thinks the President ought to act quickly to place a new justice on the bench. This is quite ironic as video from 1992 seems to negate Biden’s current stance .

In it he stands on the floor of the Senate and urges George Bush to hold off on nominating a new justice as the tumult of the election year would make it to difficult to accept.

Biden says:

“It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed,…The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year.”

Biden went on to say that the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings.

“Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” Biden said. “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”

No, Mr. President — Gitmo Should Be a Source of Pride for America

Quintin George

Reply

|

Fri 2/26/2016 8:32 PM

by JOE CONNOR February 26, 2016 4:00 AM

The Guantanamo Bay detention camps have been attacked by many, including our own president, as contrary to American values, as not “who we are” and “recruitment tools for ISIS.” Those of us who have been there have observed the terrorists in court at Camp Justice. We have witnessed the great lengths to which our judiciary goes to provide due process to the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the red-bearded, evil, boastful mastermind of the 9/l1 attacks that murdered 2,976 individuals and shattered countless lives.

Gitmo is a symbol of American goodness and greatness.

Please, Mr. President: I am honored to be part of a small group of 9/11 family members chosen to observe the pretrial proceedings. Objections to this facility and these proceedings, in my opinion, are unfounded. Gitmo represents the very best of America.

Eight of us arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, on the morning of Saturday, February 13, hopeful but apprehensive about our trip to Guantanamo to face the murderers of our family members. Aside from the deaths of our loved ones, we all brought something in common: the pursuit of justice. After a most rewarding week, we parted perfectly unified, with the utmost respect for the prosecutors, for our fantastic military, for American justice, and for one another. We took home with us hope, a steelier resolve for justice than ever, spiritual connections, and a renewed sense of pride in America.

Those are the American values that I was raised with but that have been lost on this president.

Last night’s debate may not be decisive. But it did give the two major non-Trump candidates at least four fruitful avenues of attack on the front-runner.

1. Trump’s Audits.“As far as my return, I want to file it, except for many years, I’ve been audited every year. Twelve years or something like that. Every year they audit me, audit me, audit me.”

After the debate, in an interview with CNN, he added, “But the one problem I have is that I’m always audited by the IRS, which I think is very unfair. I don’t know, maybe because of religion, maybe because I’m doing something else, maybe because I’m doing this, although this is just recently. Well maybe because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it. And maybe there’s a bias.”

How is it that Trump has never mentioned the fact that he’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service every year for twelve years before? How is it that Mr. “Two Corinthians” never bothered to mention that he believes he’s being targeted — since before the Obama administration! — by the IRS over his religious beliefs?

And last night he started hedging on whether he’ll be able to release his returns until this audit is complete.

Never licensed as a school, Trump University was in reality a series of real estate workshops in hotel ballrooms around the country, not unlike many other for-profit self-help or motivational seminars. Though short-lived, it remains a thorn in Trump’s side nearly five years after its operations ceased: In three pending lawsuits, including one in which the New York attorney general is seeking $40 million in restitution, former students allege that the enterprise bilked them out of their money with misleading advertisements.

Instead of a fast route to easy money, these Trump University students say they found generic seminars led by salesmen who pressured them to invest more cash in additional courses. The students say they didn’t learn Trump’s secrets and never received the one-on-one guidance they expected.

But the first major shot at Trump University came from Texas in January 2010. That’s when Abbott’s assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection and Public Health Division, Rick Berlin, began a probe of whether the operation violated Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act.

In a “civil investigative demand” mailed to university corporate offices at Trump’s 40 Wall Street address, Abbott’s office sought financial records; promotional and advertising material, such as that used to promote Trump University seminars in Texas; talking points and sales scripts used by seminar leaders to encourage people to purchase the paid programs; and names of all Texans who “purchased your workshop or mentoring program” from January 2008 to the present.

Rather than respond and turn over the requested documents, Trump University agreed to cease doing business in Texas.

Later that year, Trump University stopped operations altogether.

If everything’s on the up-and-up, why do you run out of town at the first inquiry from law enforcement? If the accusations about Trump University are true, Trump isn’t he big man who stands up for the little guy; he’s the fat-cat who plays the little guy for a sucker.

. . . a long-forgotten, long-fought lawsuit contending Trump used illegal immigrants for the demolition work that preceded the construction of Trump Tower. Eighteen years ago, Wojciech Kozak helped build Trump Tower, the skyscraper jewel in Donald J. Trump’s real-estate empire. Today, Mr. Kozak recalls that time with nightmare memories of backbreaking 12-hour shifts and of being cheated with 200 other undocumented Polish immigrants out of meager wages and fringe benefits.

“‘We worked in horrid, terrible conditions,” Mr. Kozak said of the six months he spent in 1980 wielding a sledgehammer and a blowtorch in demolishing the Bonwit Teller Building on Fifth Avenue to make way for Trump Tower. “We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights.” Trump insisted he never knew the workers were in the country illegally. The case was finally settled in 1999 and then sealed. Both sides described the resolution as “agreeable.”

“It’s something ironic,” said Ivan Arellano, 29, who is from Mexico and obtained legal status through marriage. He now works as a mason laying the stonework for the lobby floor and walls of what will become the Trump International Hotel. “The majority of us are Hispanics, many who came illegally,” Arellano said in Spanish. “And we’re all here working very hard to build a better life for our families.”

Interviews with about 15 laborers helping renovate the Old Post Office Pavilion revealed that many of them had crossed the U.S-Mexico border illegally before they eventually settled in the Washington region to build new lives.

This goes to credibility. Trump denounces illegal immigration in the abstract but finds it convenient and cheap when he needs work done.

4. Trump claims he can’t find Americans willing to do the work.If you grind your teeth every time you hear someone like Karl Rove use the phrase, “jobs Americans won’t do,” why would you give Donald Trump a pass?

But the attacks are beginning to pile up, with a New York Times story this week saying Mr. Trump‘s Florida country club has hired hundreds of foreign seasonal workers, rejecting applications from Americans.

Mr. Trumpsaid his Mar-a-Lago Clubhas no choice but to go to foreign workers, saying he can’t find enough Americans willing to work the hot season.

“Everybody agrees with me on that. They were part-time jobs,” he said. “Otherwise we might as well have just closed the doors.”

Really? Florida has about a half million unemployed people right now. That figure has come down about 60,000 in the past year, but you’re telling me Trump couldn’t find a single Floridian to do this work?

But if there’s another piece of advice here that absolutely disqualifies [Hillary] Clinton for the presidency, it’s “do what you love.” The truth is, that is simply not an option for most people. When it’s 39 degrees and raining in February, do you think the guy who picks up your trash is staring at your acrid, bacteria-laden refuse at 6 a.m. and saying, “Thank God, I love what I do”?

Indeed, it is precisely this cultural disconnect about the value of work that explains why there’s an open revolt in both parties and the future seems so uncertain.

If any one issue defines this election, it’s economic stagnation. Many Trump supporters in the GOP feel left behind by the twenty-first-century economy. They’re angry about it, because our “follow your bliss” culture doesn’t begin to appreciate coal miners or people who work in brake disc factories, even as it obsessively venerates empty celebrity and people like social media executives and hedge fund managers who are filthy rich in spite of the fact their contributions to society aren’t very tangible.

I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t. That wasn’t the metric of success that I wanted in my life.

Oh, shut up.You know who can’t bring themselves to care about money? Phenomenally wealthy people who will never have to work a day in their lives. Whether you’re just trying to make enough money to have food for the week, or you’re sweating your kids’ college educations and whether you’ll be able to afford retirement, those of us who “care” about money in the sense that we’re worried if we’ll have enough do so because we have to, Chelsea. It’s not greed. It’s not selfishness. It’s not misplaced values.

Really, the Clintons are insufferable.

ADDENDA: On this week’s pop-culture podcast, a discussion of the Oscars and how Hollywood prefers to blame American society for its own racial inequalities and disputes; true crime television and the nightmare of taxpayer-funded serial killers; Facebook and America’s “Envy Culture”; how Millennial whining can spur valuable life lessons, and why we expect to see people assaulting each other over access to electrical sockets at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference.

SHOCK: The Picture of 2 Men That Some Say Proves Scalia Was MURDERED

The sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — and the fact the Obama administration is trying to take full advantage of the situation — has led many to believe that some sort of malice is afoot in the hinterlands of Texas.

Conspiracy theorists have been perhaps most alarmed by two pictures showing two men together. One of the men in the photo below, on the left, isJohn Poindexter, the man who owns the ranch where Justice Scalia died.

In addition to owning the Cibolo Creek Ranch, Poindexter was a major donor to the Democrat Party, something that will always get the attention of the commander in chief.DC Whispers, which obtained these photos, remarked that Poindexter was being honored for his service in Vietnam.

However, the coincidence has many people alarmed, particularly since Poindexter was the man who found Scalia’s body.

““There was no medical examiner present. There was no one who declared the death who was there. It wasdone by telephonefrom a U.S. Marshal appointed by Obama himself,” Savage continued. He elaborated on this in apiecehe wrote for his website.

TRENDING STORIES

“The question is, is it a conspiracy theory to ask questions that are so obviously in need of answer, or is it just common-sense,” Savage asked. “And where is the common-sense both in the press and the Republican Party(?)”

Savage also asked what would happen if Justice Ginsburg had died and Donald Trump were the president.

“Do you think the left would be screaming thatDonald Trumpwould have no right to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court? Do you think they would be demanding an autopsy and a full federal investigation?” Savage wrote.

Whatever the situation, it’s certainly the latest strange development in a death which has raised more questions than it has provided answers.

Do you think Justice Antonin Scalia’s death is suspicious? Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know!

Do you think Scalia’s death needs to be investigated by an independent commission?

Maria Juana

Charles Krauthammer; ON THE CLINTON’S.The Clinton Foundation is “organized crime” at it’s finest, and we are financing it! Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history. This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and re-package it, to be used for your own purposes. All tax free.

Here’s how it works:

You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case one in Canada.

Foreign oligarch’s & governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did contributing
mega millions. I am sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine
Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send un-told millions to a Canadian charity).

The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations & makes a massive donation the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation, and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits, the identification of individual donors.

The Clinton Foundation, then “spends” some of this money, for legitimate good works programs. Un-fortunately,
experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton’s, pay salaries to un-told numbers of hangers on, & fund lavish travel, etc. Again virtually all tax free, which means you & I are subsidizing it.

The Clinton Foundation with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

Net result foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free & untraceable
back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes, as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests & then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and, guess who was Secretary of State, when the approval, was granted? As an aside, imagine how former, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep, is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts, and loans for doing minor favors, for a guy promoting, a vitamin company. Not legal, but not exactly putting U.S. security risk.

Sarcasm aside, if you are still not persuaded, this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton’s, ask yourself this: Why did these foreign interests, funnel money, through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations & countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary’s destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk, she was willing to take. Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest, and criminal, and they are Slick! Warning : They could be back in the White House, in January 2017. Do not let it happen. Remember, most people are not well informed. We must somehow inform and educate them.

área de archivos adjuntos

Justice Scalia Had Secret Meeting With Obama Hours Before His Death

Maria Juana

MUST SEE!

February 16, 2016 [mc]

US Supreme Court Justice Scalia Had Secret Texas Meeting With Obama Just Hours Before His Death

A stunning report prepared for the Office of the President (OP) by the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) examining the letter sent to President Putin by American billionaire Donald Trumplast week that appeared to predict the murder of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scaliasuggests that just hours before this esteemed jurists death he had held a secret meeting with President Barack Obama aboard a US Air Force plane heading to a secluded Texas ranch owned by a close personal friend and top campaign donor of America’s leader.

According to this report, SVR “assests” reported that on 11 February both President Obama and Justice Scalia were at Joint Base Andrews (JBA) scheduled for two separate US Air Force flights from Andrews Field—the first taking President Obama to Los Angeles, and the second taking Justice Scalia to Marfa Municipal Airport (KMRF) located in the southwestern region of Texas near the Mexican border.

While President Obama was scheduled to depart on one of the US Air Force’s two Boeing VC-25aircraft (commonly referred to as Air Force One), this report continues, Justice Scalia’s flight was scheduled aboard a Gulfstream C-37A—which is the US Air Force’s designation for their fleet of the popular Gulfstream V private jet aircraft.

Just prior to these two US Air Force aircraft departing from Andrews Field, this report notes, SVR “assests” assigned to monitoring top American political and military figures noted a “discrepancy from normal protocol” when Justice Scalia’s three US Marshal Services Judicial Security Division (JSD) “protectors/defenders” left the airbase with the “personal protection” of this noted jurist being transferred to the US Secret Service (SS).

Upon both President Obama and Justice Scalia’s different flights departing from Andrews Field, this report continues detailing; an even greater “discrepancy from normal protocol” was noted by the SVR when they were informed by Aerospace Forces (AF) satellite monitoring personal that US Air Force F-16 fighter aircraftfrom three different bases (Shaw Air Force Base, Montgomery Fieldand Luke Air Force Base) accompanied the entire flights of both the Boeing VC-25 and the Gulfstream C-37A—a level of protection normally only afforded to the US President exclusively.

As to why the US Air Force provided F-16 fighter aircraft protection to Justice Scalia’s flight, this report continues, became even more concerning to the SVR when after the flight landed in Marfa, Texas, this “extremeprotective air cover” was maintained until the Gulfstream C-37A departed three hours later and flew to Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) accompanied by its fighter plane escort—and where at the exact same time the American press covering President Obama began questioning where he was, only to be told that President Obama had been missing due to a late-night, off-the-books dinner with three of Hollywood’s elitethe White House wouldn’t further comment on.

This SVR report, though, “strongly suggests” that President Obama had, in fact, been aboard the Gulfstream C-37A with Justice Scalia from Andrews Field to Marfa and then further traveled from Texas to Los Angeles on it—which they say is the only

conclusion to be reached due to the US Air Force’s continuous protection of it.

In support of this conclusion, this report continues, AF radar and electronic spectrum satellite analysis of Marfa, where the Gulfstream C-37A landed with Justice Scalia and (maybe) President Obama, shows a four vehicle convoy leaving the KMRF airport and traveling to a 12,140 hectar (30,000 acre) estate called the Cibolo Creek Ranch.

These analyses affirm Trump’s allure to white, working-class voters as central to his candidacy. His dominant standing in the polls rests on the pillar. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, it will be through their support.

Yet these analyses, revealing as they are, overlook a salient fact. The verdict of working-class voters will not be the only one rendered on Trump, or the most important one. However, popular Trump may be with the working class, he is as unpopular with voters who have graduated from college, a group without whose backing the GOP has a chance at regaining the White House.

Trump does respectably among college-educated Republicans. In Quinnipiac University’s most recent poll of the Republican race, Trump received the support of 30 percent of respondents who had a college degree, more than any other Republican did. This was an improvement from earlier this month, when Trump trailed Marco Rubio in this demographic. But if three-tenths of college-educated Republicans back Trump, then seven-tenths of them do not. To put it another way: the vast majority of Republicans with college degrees oppose Donald Trump.

Let’s Compare Donald Trump to Everyone Else

Trump does have a positive favorability score among college Republicans of 55 to 37 percent. Yet his net rating is the lowest of any GOP candidate. Ted Cruz (61 to 27 percent), Marco Rubio (75 to 15 percent), and John Kasich (62 to 9 percent) all best Trump on this measure.

Source: Quinnipiac University Poll, 17 February 2016.

Trump also does worst on the question of which candidate “you would definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president.” Twenty-eight percent of all Republican voters would refuse to back him, which improves to 26 percent when only Republican college graduates are considered.

Trump has a hard ceiling with the latter group that manifests in survey after survey. College graduates constituted 54 percent of Republican turnout in the New Hampshire primary. Trump won this group with 29 percent of the vote. This is a good number. But it also means the other 71 percent went for Trump’s rivals.

In Iowa, Trump fared worse. College graduates made up 51 percent of the GOP caucus electorate. Trump could do no better than third, winning 21 percent of college-educated Iowa Republicans. Both Rubio (28 percent) and Cruz (25 percent) bested him in this crucial demographic. All told, fourth-fifths of Iowa Republicans who graduated college opposed Trump. As Tim Alberta notes in his exegesis of the exit polls from the first two nominating contests, these results suggest “the formation of an anti-Trump coalition among college-educated Republicans.” Trump’s “weak link,” as Ron Brownstein calls it, followed him to South Carolina, where Rubio beat Trump 27 to 25 percent among voters with at least a four-year degree.

There is no reason to believe Trump’s fortunes with college-educated Republican voters will improve—and this is just Republicans. With college-educated voters as a whole, Trump is poison. Pure, lethal poison.

The preceding chart, also drawn from Quinnipiac’s latest polling, is illuminating. For one thing, it shows that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, is 13 points underwater with college-educated voters. Yet she is a homecoming queen compared to Trump, who is an unfathomable 37 points in arrears with college-educated voters. Cruz is also anathema to college graduates. They even look askance at Rubio now, while earlier this month they were enamored of him. Only Bernie Sanders gets positive marks from this group.

A candidate’s standing with college graduates is significant because it correlates with how well he or she performs on head-to-head ballot tests against other candidates. Here the news is no better for Trump. He would get crushed among college voters, and consequently lose the election.

This chart reveals just how poorly Trump would do with college graduates against Hillary Clinton. While he loses to Clinton by one point overall, his deficit soars to 15 points with college graduates. This is a gap Trump’s vaunted working-class support cannot fill. According to Quinnipiac, he only leads by five points with voters who do not have college degrees, 45 to 40 percent.

Cruz, not usually categorized as a champion of the working class, does better with them against Clinton than Trump does. The Texas senator gets 48 percent of working-class voters to 39 percent for the former secretary of state. His deficit among college voters is only 13 points (52 to 39 percent), though, so he leads Clinton 46 to 43 percent. Rubio polls best against Clinton with both groups, trailing 40 to 46 percent with college voters and leading 50 to 37 percent with non-college voters. This translates to a 48 to 41 percent lead for the Florida senator overall.

College-Educated People Vote More

The “diploma divide” among Republican voters was a key factor in the 2012 primary, and it has recurred in 2016. In 2012, college-educated Republicans lined up behind Romney, while those without degrees fragmented among several candidates. But in 2016, as David Wasserman noted in December, it is college-educated Republicans who have divided their support while those without degrees have coalesced behind Trump. Consequently, Trump leads the GOP field because even though he gets only a quarter of Republicans who graduated from college, he gets two-fifths of those who did not.

The problem for Trump (or any candidate) is that winning non-college graduates while losing degree holders does not a winning coalition make.

The problem for Trump (or any candidate) is that winning non-college graduates while losing degree holders does not a winning coalition make. All it does is guarantee defeat. Per the 2012 exit polls, Romney won college graduates 51 to 47 percent over President Obama. Romney won the only educational cohort on his way to a four-point loss.

Trump supporters might counter that he would make up for it by winning overwhelming support from working-class voters. This is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is that, as seen in the Quinnipiac poll, Trump only breaks even with non-college graduates in the general election. The second reason is that there simply are not enough working-class voters to make up for the catastrophic losses among college-educated voters Trump is destined to incur.

Voting propensity is strongly correlated with educational attainment. The more educated one is, the more likely one is to vote. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the two most reliable voting groups in the United States are voters with bachelor’s degrees and those with post-graduate degrees. The following chart, drawn from the 2012 election review by the Census Bureau is Current Population Survey, shows that these two groups turned out at rates of 75 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Even those who attended but did not finish college had a voting rate higher than 60 percent. The rate for high school graduates was just over 50 percent, and it declined sharply for those who did not finish high school.

There is simply no way a candidate can win a presidential election now by losing the biggest turnout group by ten or more points, as polls consistently show Trump doing. College graduates cannot stand Trump, and this surely is no small factor in him having the highest negative rating of any presidential candidate Gallup has ever tested. Sixty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump. That kind of radioactivity usually requires a Geiger counter to measure.

College graduates vote more, and there are more of them who vote. According to the 2012 exit polls, 47 percent of voters had at least a four-year degree. Another 29 percent spent at least some time enrolled on campus. That adds up to 76 percent. The overlap is not perfect, but if working-class voters are defined as voters with no more than a high school education, then Trump’s hopes rest on taking larger and larger bites from a cherry.

Donald Trump’s Missing White Voters

Even the pit has been consumed. Psychologists and pundits have fixated on “the mystery of the missing white voters” ever since Sean Trende noticed their disappearance after the 2012 election. In a recent series on the Trump phenomenon, Trende posits that the candidate most likely to appeal to these missing voters is Trump, as they were, for the most part, rural blue-collar whites with an affinity for populism who in another age voted for Ross Perot.

There simply are not enough working-class voters to make up for Trump’s catastrophic losses among college-educated voters.

As Nate Cohn puts it, Trump’s base consists of irregularly voting nominal Democrats from the industrial north, the South, and Appalachia. The problem, Trende writes, is that there simply aren’t enough of them to win even if you hold everything else constant. The alternatives are either to win more non-white support or increase the GOP’s already staggering edge with white voters.

There is the rub. Trump could theoretically get more non-white voters (perhaps by appealing to black voters more than Romney did). Or, more plausibly, he could boost turnout among blue-collar whites with his stances against free trade and immigration. But he would do so almost certainly at the expense of support from white-collar voters.

Liam Donovan framed the dilemma well in a recent article in National Review: “Trump can run up the popular-vote score all he wants riding white-working-class resentment. It won’t help him when he gets buried in swing counties such as Fairfax, Hamilton, Hillsborough, and Arapahoe. Sure, he can target the Rust Belt, but big margins in Western Pennsylvania or the Upper Peninsula won’t matter if he can’t play in Bucks or Oakland Counties.”

Trump won’t play in Bucks County. He won’t for reasons Trende articulates in the final part of his excellent series. He argues that Trump is the avatar of what he labels “cultural traditionalism.” Cultural traditionalists share certain attitudes “about the importance of family, religion, achievement, intellectual advancement, diversity (at least within categories deemed important by elites), patriotism, and nationalism” distinct from, and often diametrically opposed to, those of their counterparts, the “cultural cosmopolitans.”

In voting terms, there are more cultural cosmopolitans than there are cultural traditionalists, and by a considerable margin.

The GOP establishment is made up for the most part of cultural cosmopolitans, while many of its voters are cultural traditionalists. Out of this untenable tension sprang Trump. The cultural traditionalists love him not least because he is a giant middle finger to the cosmopolitans.

Cultural cosmopolitans, affluent, college-educated professionals who cringe whenever Trump promises to ban Muslims or deport every illegal immigrant in the country, though, populate the nation’s metropolitan areas and suburbs. As we have already seen, there are, at least in voting terms, more cultural cosmopolitans than there are cultural traditionalists, and by a considerable margin. As we have also seen, they loathe Donald Trump. They are never going to vote for someone who so grievously offends their sensibilities.

Evidence Trump Haters Won’t Switch Sides

A Trump backer might rejoin that I am merely speculating that college-educated Republicans would not flock to Trump if he became the nominee. Supporters of one candidate during a primary often say they won’t support his opponent but rally around the party flag for the general election. This is a fair point. It is hard to prove a negative, especially one that has not happened yet. There is some evidence, however, to indicate Trump may not benefit from this normal pattern.

On Election Day, Akin lost college graduates 50 to 44 percent, a seven-point swing.

There are few analogues to Trump in recent years. One, who resembled the magnate, at least in his capacity for intemperate remarks, was Todd Akin. In the last poll conducted before he devoured his leg, Akin led his 2012 Missouri Senate race against incumbent Claire McCaskill by 11 points. This included a one-point advantage with college graduates, 46 to 45 percent. Yet on Election Day, Akin lost college graduates 50 to 44 percent, a seven-point swing. Moreover, 15 percent of Republican voters defected and voted for McCaskill.

Another GOP Senate candidate who made foolish remarks about abortion in 2012 was Richard Mourdock of Indiana. He managed to win college-educated voters, but like Akin, he bled considerable Republican support: 14 percent of Hoosier Republicans backed Democrat Joe Donnelly, who won.

Most instructive, perhaps, is the 2008 presidential election, which saw Barack Obama win 9 percent of Republicans and an astounding 20 percent of self-described conservatives. Given the aspirational qualities of Obama’s candidacy, we should not be surprised he had so much cross-ballot appeal. Nine or 10 percent is not much in a decisive contest like his first presidential campaign, but in a close election or a swing state, it could be the difference between victory and defeat.

Donald Trump Means the End of the Republican Party

Trump does not make inflammatory comments about rape or abortion. That is because he is too busy making them about everything else: immigration, foreign policy, economics, his rivals, journalists, you name it. His peanut gallery roars, but the rest of the country is unimpressed. A Trump-inspired descent into white identity politics would be a cataclysm for the GOP because it would alienate the very voters it needs if it wants the White House back. It must get at least a few voters for whom cultural affinity outweighs partisan affiliation. There is no way to win without them. Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, depends on pursuing voters who don’t exist at the cost of those who do.

Trump’s campaign depends on pursuing voters who do not exist at the cost of those who do.

It is well and good to appeal to the working class. It behooves the GOP to do so. There is great merit in criticizing the GOP and its leadership and policy cadres, which often seem to care about little more than hunting such mythical beasts as the flat tax while pretending to pay lip service to any number of causes dear to its rank and file. I have myself avowed that the GOP establishment (and donor class) deserve “incineration.” But Trump should not be the instrument of vengeance. For that sword, once drawn, will be sheathed only with difficulty.

By now, you have surely begun to suspect that I oppose Trump. You are right. I oppose him on philosophical and ideological grounds. But I also oppose him for practical reasons. Nominate Trump, and the GOP would lose college-educated voters for at least a generation, and possibly forever. With them would go the prospect of ever again winning states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. So, without them, would the GOP be finished as a national party and perhaps as any kind of party at all.

The data speaks in a clear voice and it speaks a simple message: the Republican Party can have Donald Trump or it can have a future, but it cannot have both.

MORE ON THE CLOWN FOR PRESIDENT PLEASE DISTRIBUTE – IMPORTANT

Jorge A. Villalón

TRUMP AIRLINES – In October 1988, Donald Trump threw his wallet into the airline business by purchasing Eastern Air Shuttle, a service that for 27 years had run… hourly flights between Boston, New York City and Washington, D.C. For roughly $365 million, Trump got a fleet of 17 Boeing 727s, landing facilities in each of the three cities and the right to paint his name on an airplane. But his gamble was a bust. A lack of increased interest from customers combined with high pre–Gulf War fuel prices meant the shuttle never turned a profit. The high debt forced Trump to default on his loans, and ownership of the company was turned over to creditors. The Trump Shuttle ceased to exist in 1992.

TRUMP CASINOS – Donald Trump’s gambles don’t always go as planned. Especially when that gamble is gambling itself. In February 2009, Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the third time in a row — an extremely rare feat in American business. The casino company, founded in the 1980s, runs the Taj Mahal, the Trump Plaza and the Trump Marina. Trump defended himself by distancing himself from the company, though he owned 28% of its stock. “Other than the fact that it has my name on it — which I’m not thrilled about — I have nothing to do with the company,” he said. He resigned from Trump Entertainment soon after that third filing, but in August of that year he, and an affiliate of Beal Bank Nevada, agreed to buy the company for $100 million.

TRUMP MARRIAGES – Donald Trump’s life in the bedroom has been messy at best. The real estate magnate married his first wife, Ivana, in 1977, but things got rocky after Trump’s affair with actress Marla Maples surfaced in New York City tabloids. “You bitch, leave my husband alone!” Ivana told Maples on a ski trip in Aspen, Colo. Ivana’s warning fell on deaf ears, and in 1992, Trump left her with a reported $25 million settlement and married his mistress one year later. His marriage to Maples was even shorter-lived, and the couple divorced in 1999. These days, Trump is married to Slovenian supermodel Melania Knauss.

TRUMP MORTGAGE – In April 2006, Trump announced that, after years in the real estate business, he was launching a mortgage company. He held a glitzy press conference at which his son Donald Jr. predicted that Trump Mortgage would soon be the nation’s No. 1 home-loan lender. Trump told CNBC, “Who knows more about financing than me?” Apparently, plenty. Within a year and a half, Trump Mortgage had closed shop. The would-be lending powerhouse was done in by timing (the housing market cratered in 2007) and ironically enough, given Trump’s Apprentice TV show, poor hiring. The executive Trump selected to run his loan company, E.J. Ridings, claimed to have been a top executive at a prestigious investment bank. In reality, Ridings’ highest role on Wall Street was as a registered broker, a position he held for a mere six days.

TRUMP UNIVERSITY – They hoped to get rich off real estate, so they enrolled in Donald Trump’s University to learn the tricks of the trade, some of them maxing out their credit cards to pay tens of thousands of dollars for insider knowledge they believed could make them wealthy.

Do you remember Trump University? Probably not — founded in 2005, it didn’t really catch on. And one big reason it didn’t catch on is because it was a total scam, say former students in complaints that were filed to the Federal Trade Commission and were unearthed by a Freedom of Information Act recently requested by Gizmodo.

“I want my $35,000+ back. All I got was books that I could have gotten from the library that could guide me better then Trump’s class did.” Another grievance describes a strategy reminiscent of Scientology. After paying $1,495 for a three-day seminar, which provided information freely available on Zillow, “attendees were told that unless they purchased additional products (software; individual coaching) they would not succeed,” the complaint states.

In 2013, the New York Attorney General’s office filed a $40 million lawsuit against the former reality star and current Republican presidential candidate for failing to impart the promised real estate education on 5,000 students and subjecting prospective students to high-pressure sales tactics. In April 2015, a judge ruled that Trump was indeed personally responsible and that the matter would go to trial. A class-action suit against Trump related to Trump University is also pending.

TRUMP VODKA – Trump vodka was introduced in 2006 to much fanfare. At the time, Trump predicted the T&T (Trump and Tonic) would become the most requested drink in America. On Larry King Live, he said he got into the vodka business to outdo his friends at Grey Goose. Ten years later, Grey Goose is still on top shelves throughout the country. As for Trump vodka? Yeah, we’d never heard of it either. The New York City blog Gothamist reported the vodka stopped production “because the company failed to meet the threshold requirements.” In 2011, Trump’s company filed an injunction to prevent an ISRAELI company from selling Trump vodka without his consent or authorization. Meaning the Donald stopped the only people in world who wanted to drink his vodka from doing so.

CHINA CONNECTION – “The problem with our country is we don’t manufacture anything anymore,” Donald Trump told Fox News recently. “The stuff that’s been sent over from China,” he complained, “falls apart after a year and a half. It’s crap.” That very same Donald Trump has his own line of clothing, and it’s made in … China. (OK, OK — not all of it. Salon, which reported this intriguing, head-scratching fact, notes that some of his apparel is from MEXICO and Bangladesh.)

BANKRUPTCIES – Donald Trump brags about how well his businesses have fared. Yet, no major U.S. company has filed for Chapter 11 more than Trump’s casino empire in the last 30 years[*].

In 1990, the banking institutions that backed his real estate investments had to bail him out with a $65 million “rescue package” that contained new loans and credit. But it wasn’t enough, and in 1991 the famous developer was nearly $4 billion in debt and his famous Taj Mahal casino had to file bankruptcy, [with another bankruptcy for Trump Castle Associates being filed in 1992*]. Trump’s economic troubles continued through the ’90s, while he was personally leveraged to nearly $1 billion. In 2004, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts also filed for bankruptcy. In 2009, the same company (by then renamed Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc.) filed for bankruptcy again.

The progressive activist group MoveOn has thrown its weight behind Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders as support for Hillary Clinton wanes.

“With a record-setting 78.6 percent of 340,665 votes cast by the MoveOn membership, Senator Bernie Sanders has won MoveOn.org Political Action’s endorsement for president with the largest total and widest margin in MoveOn history,” the George Soros founded group states on its website today.

MoveOn lists five reasons why it has decided to support Sanders. The group declares it backs Sanders for his “refusal to accept the status quo of the wealthiest Americans using their power to influence politicians” and “getting our country on track and not getting us in more wars.”

MoveOn has consistently functioned as a lobby group for the policies of the Obama administration, including the disaster of Obamacare and the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the escalation of the war on terror that has turned America into a police and surveillance state. In 2007 it backed a bill trotted out by then Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to continue financing the occupation of Iraq.

The group acts as a front for wealthy Democrats. It was founded with the help of the financier George Soros who donated $1.46 million to get the organization rolling. Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt hotel family gave the group a $4 million donation.

“The self-labeled Progressive Movement that has arisen over the past decade is primarily one big propaganda campaign serving the political interests of the the Democratic Party’s richest one-percent who created it. The funders and owners of the Progressive Movement get richer and richer off Wall Street and the corporate system. But they happen to be Democrats, cultural and social liberals who can’t stomach Republican policies, and so after bruising electoral defeats a decade ago they decided to buy a movement, one just like the Republicans, a copy,” writes John Stauber.

“Sanders’ socialist beliefs and actions evolved into almost complete support of the Democratic Party after leaving the stage of Vermont politics and entering the national arena,” writes Howard Linsoff.

In addition to the illusion Sanders will break up the financial oligarchy represented by Wall Street, progressive Democrats seem to think their candidate will end the disastrous wars they blame on the Bush regime.

“When pressed for details on military intervention, Sanders has indicated that his differences with the Barack Obama administration are quite minor,” writes Norman Solomon. “Like many Democrats, he supports U.S. air strikes in the Middle East, while asserting that only countries in the region should deploy ground forces there. Sanders shares the widespread view among members of Congress who don’t want boots on the ground but do want U.S. air power to keep dropping bombs and firing missiles.”

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s 1999 Kosovo War. One of his advisers quit in protest over the support and Sanders had anti-war activists who occupied his office in 1999 arrested. He did not support a vote in Congress to oppose the war in Afghanistan and voted to continue appropriations to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2003 he backed a resolution supporting Bush’s war in Iraq and his expansion of the war on terror at home and abroad.

“Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. Ever since he won election to the House, he has taken either equivocal positions on U.S. wars or outright supported them,” writes Ashley Smith.

Considering his voting record in support of Democrat policies and his support of the neocon warmongers, it is fair to assume if elected Sanders will continue the Obama agenda on foreign policy that is almost identical to that of Bush. He will placate his supporters with anti-Wall Street rhetoric but all his initiatives will fall short.

Congress, after all, is owned by the financial elite. It will not vote to run off the moneychangers and will certainly not put an end the Federal Reserve and its control over the monetary system and the economy.

Antonin Scalia Said He’d Like This Judge to Replace HimPresident Barak Obama and the Republican-controlled Senate are ready to tear into each other over who will replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Blood, tears, dirty tactics, destruction!—figuratively speaking. And while everyone’s popping off about who may or may not replace him, there’s one person we forgot to ask until now:

“If there is one other name, one other judicial name associated with the two principal theories of this book, textualism and originalism, it is Frank Easterbrook,” Scalia said. “It is. If I had to pick somebody to replace me on the Supreme Court, it would be Frank.”

Judge Easterbrook works in the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. He was nominated for that position by President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

You can see Scalia talk about Easterbrook beginning at the 15-minute mark:

This is interesting from a political standpoint since Easterbrook once upheld a Chicago handgun ban, which the Supreme Court, with Scalia’s vote, later overturned in 2009. But it might be unlikely for Obama to choose Easterbrook, considering the judge’s relatively old age for a nominee (67), and the link to Reagan, a Republican president.

Frank Easterbrook graduated from the Law School in 1973. He was an editor of the Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. Before coming to the Law School, he attended Swarthmore College, from which he received a degree in 1970 with high honors. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

Judge Easterbrook was a law clerk to Levin H. Campbell of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He then joined the solicitor general’s office, where he served first as assistant to the solicitor general and later as deputy solicitor general of the United States. He returned to the Law School in 1979. Before becoming a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1985, Judge Easterbrook was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law.

Judge Easterbrook is interested in antitrust law, criminal law and procedure, and other subjects involving implicit or explicit markets. He was a member of the SEC’s Advisory Committee on Tender Offers in 1983. He was elected to the American Law Institute in the same year and to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1992. Between 1982 and 1991, he was an editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. He has written, with Daniel R. Fischel, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law(1991) and has published numerous articles, several of them scholarly.

Charles Santos-Buch

Donald Trump Wins South Carolina Republican Primary

Donald Trump won the GOP South Carolina primary, solidifying his status as the party’s front-runner. In his victory speech he reiterated his promise to build a wall with Mexico and “make America great again.” Photo: Getty

The South Carolina results solidified Mr. Trump’s status as the party’s front-runner and marked the most dramatic repudiation to date of entrenched interests inside the GOP. Mr. Trump won—and was well-positioned to win—all 50 of the state’s delegates.

The victory sends Mr. Trump into the most important stretch of the primary season with unmistakable momentum—at a time when centrist, business-friendly voters are still struggling to settle on a clear alternative to the combative billionaire businessman. That dynamic has enabled Mr. Trump to dominate the crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls.

The field began to dwindle with Mr. Bush’s withdrawal, and Mr. Rubio in his primary-rally speech declared, “After tonight this has become a three-person race, and we will win the nomination.”

In his own speech, Mr. Cruz said, “Gov. Bush brought honor and dignity to this race.”

ENLARGE

Jeb Bush suspended his presidential campaign after a disappointing finish in the South Carolina primary.PHOTO: REUTERS/RANDALL HILL

”If you are a conservative, this is where you belong because only one strong conservative is in a position to win this race,” Mr. Cruz said. “We are the only campaign that has beaten and can beat Donald Trump.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump exulted in his victory at a rally with supporters in Spartanburg, S.C. “Nothing is easy about running for president,” he said. “It’s tough. It’s nasty. It’s mean. It’s vicious. It’s beautiful. When you win, it’s beautiful.”

Trump’s triumph, coming on the heels of his commanding win in New Hampshire two weeks ago, was important because it demonstrated that the brash New Yorker could win even in a conservative Southern state.

Nearly three-quarters of voters in the South Carolina were evangelicals, according to exit polls. But that was no obstacle to victory for Mr. Trump, despite his past record of holding liberal positions on abortion, his three marriages, and his use of profanity on the stump.

His victory in a Bible Belt state points to the power of Mr. Trump’s appeal among disaffected voters weary of the GOP establishment and the artifice of traditional candidates: Exit polls indicated that more than half of South Carolina primary voters said they were angry with Republican leaders.

With Mr. Bush’s exit, the pressure will mount on retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who pulled in 7.2% of the vote, to also leave the race. Larry Ross, Mr. Carson’s communications director, posted a statement on Facebook in which the presidential candidate said “We’ve barely finished the first inning, and there’s a lot of game left. I look forward to carrying on to the Nevada caucuses.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich, regardless of the result Saturday, seems determined to soldier on until Michigan votes March 8.

Video: Candidates’ Didn’t-Win Spin

GOP and Democratic candidates made their concession speeches sound like anything but. Here’s how losses were spun as victories after the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports. Photo: Getty

The campaign now moves first to Nevada, where Republicans hold their caucuses Feb. 25. But the biggest prize looms March 1when Republicans in 11 states vote—most of them in deep red states like Georgia and Alabama as well as Mr. Cruz’s delegate-rich home state of Texas.

South Carolina awards 29 delegates to the statewide winner and another three to the winner of each of its seven congressional districts. If Mr. Trump’s statewide lead translates into specific districts, he may deny other Republican according to polls of the field.

Turnout was heavy in the Palmetto State for the fiercely fought election. The run up to election day was riddled with negative campaigning, in ads and on the stump in a state known for its bare-knuckles politics.

South Carolina prides itself on its record of delivering primary victories to candidates who go on to become president. But that trend was broken in 2012 when the primary was won by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich rather than establishment favorite Mitt Romney, who went on to capture the nomination.

That victory for Mr. Gingrich, something of a conservative bomb-thrower in his day, may have been a harbinger of how the state’s GOP was changing to one where antiestablishment iconoclast like Mr. Trump could win against an old-line establishment candidate like Mr. Bush, as well as Mr. Rubio—who had lined up a formidable array of new-generation establishment Republican leaders in South Carolina like Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott.

The lingering question is whether Mr. Trump’s plurality win points to a ceiling in the support he can win, making him vulnerable if he were matched head-to-head in a two-man race. But back-to-back wins in South Carolina and New Hampshire could give him unstoppable momentum as anti-Trump forces remain fractured.

The South Carolina contest exposed clear fault lines in the party among the top three finishers. Mr. Rubio barnstormed the state with Ms. Haley and Mr. Scott, promising to unify the party. Mr. Cruz, meanwhile, traveled South Carolina with a cast of conservative upstarts and made an aggressive play for the state’s evangelical voters.

ENLARGE

Sen. Marco Rubio is greeted by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, left, as he walks on stage to deliver a speech to supporters in Columbia, S.C.PHOTO: WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES

But the primary also proved—more than in either New Hampshire or the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses—that Mr. Trump’s coalition of predominantly blue-collar voters who are fed up with the political system might prove durable enough to win in a splintered electorate, particularly if the race stays crowded. Mr. Trump finished second to Mr. Cruz in Iowa.

Mr. Bush’s withdrawal was an anticlimactic end to the campaign of a brother and a son of presidents, one who started the race as the perceived front-runner. Mr. Bush’s finish is all the more disappointing because he put everything he had into the state, trotting out his brother, former President George W. Bush, and his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, to stump with him.

The close result will intensify the already fierce competition between the two Cuban-American senators, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio. With increasing ferocity over the last weeks in South Carolina, they have been going at each other hammer and tong, accusing each other of lying, flip flopping, and more.

Mr. Cruz has staked a lot on winning in the South and has been built an extensive campaign organization in many of the 11 states voting on March 1.

That is an important region for him before the primary calendar takes the campaign into the industrial Midwest—to states like Michigan on March 8 and Ohio March 15—where his evangelical, tea party brand of conservatism isn’t seen as popular.

But in early polling, Texas is the only March 1 state in which Mr. Cruz is leading.

The Rubio camp was banking on Mr. Bush withdrawing from the race and other heavyweights in the party to line up behind the Florida senator—to send a signal to voters in other states that he is the obvious alternative to Messrs. Cruz and Trump. His team knows he needs to consolidate those voters as much as possible to boost his prospects ahead of Super Tuesday, when 11 mostly Southern states hold nominating contests and a must-win contest in his home state of Florida on March 15.

Mr. Kasich has invested heavily in Michigan, which is holding its primary March 8, and may try to stay in at least until then.

Election Year Humor

Quintin George

Subject: : Election Year Humor

If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

~Jay Leno~

The problem with political jokes is they get elected.

~Henry Cate, VII~

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office

~Aesop~

If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these State of the Union speeches, there wouldn’t be any inducement to go to heaven.

~Will Rogers~

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

~Nikita Khrushchev~

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.

~Clarence Darrow~

Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.

~John Quinton~

Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.

~Author unknown~

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.

~Oscar Ameringer~

I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.

~Adlai Stevenson, 1952~

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.

~ Tex Guinan~

I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.

~Charles de Gaulle~

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.

~Doug Larson~

There ought to be one day — just one — when there is open season on Congressmen.

It is totally unacceptable for the President of the United States to reward a dictatorial regime with an historic visit when human rights abuses endure and democracy continues to be shunned.

This will mark the first time a U.S. President is visiting a dictatorship in Latin America since Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 visit to Nicaragua and it’s the first presidential visit to Cuba since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Since Castro seized power, nine American Presidents – Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush – did not rush to the island to shake hands with an oppressive dictator.

They instead stood firmly against a regime that represses its people’s freedoms and blatantly violates human rights just 90 miles from our shore. The President is – again – prioritizing short-term economic interests over long-term and enduring American values. He will rue this decision, just as he will ultimately rue giving a lifeline to the Ayatollah.

As our President plans this trip with expectations that the world will watch and cheer, I remain of the belief that until the Cuban people are given the freedoms and liberties they deserve, eased relations should not be cheered.

Over a year ago when the Administration ushered in a one-sided deal with Cuba that was a win for the regime and a loss for the Cuban people, it started on an ill-fated trajectory. At every turn, I have urged President Obama to correct this course, but, unfortunately, the news of this trip is another step in the wrong direction.

This is reminiscent of the case of Burma, where amid great fanfare, we declared victory with a Presidential visit in 2012. At least in that case, we exacted 11 commitments from the government under the mantra of “action-for-action.”

We’ve seen multiple steps that have shifted leverage to the Castro regime: travel, finance and commerce regulations have been eased, Cuba has been removed from the State-Sponsor of Terrorism List and an embassy has opened. However, since these sweeping changes started in December 2014, Cubans have been beaten, arrested, and repressed at higher rates than ever before. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights documented over 900 political arrests by the Castro regime in the month of December 2015 and 1,400 in January 2016 alone.

U.S. fugitives, like Joanne Chesimard who remains on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorism List for the murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, are still enjoying safe harbor on the island and not a penny of the $6 billion in outstanding claims by American citizens and businesses for properties confiscated by the Castros has been repaid.

To this day, we have not seen one substantial step toward transparent democratic elections, improved human rights, freedom of assembly, or the ability to form independent political parties and trade unions in Cuba.

And yet, despite the lack of reciprocity from a despotic and reinvigorated Castro regime, our President is rewarding this oppressive regime with a visit. In the case of Cuba, we should at the very least expect Joanne Chesimard to step off Air Force One with U.S. marshals.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Robert Menendez a United States Senator from New Jersey.

Eight months after the U.S. Embassy opened in Cuba, what is the effect of this much-celebrated opening of diplomatic relations? Who has benefitted?

The Washington Post noted today that “there has been little movement on political freedoms…and the number of dissidents in detention has steadily increased in recent months.” In fact there has been no progress on freedom whatsoever. So far, the real effect of the Obama “opening” is an increase in the flow of funds to the Castro regime through tourism and business with state-owned companies.

But the White House says President Obama will visit Cuba in March. Why is the President visiting, given the lack of change? Because he cannot resist the photo op with Fidel Castro. It’s as simple as that.

What about human rights? The Post tells us that “in recent weeks, administration officials have made it clear Obama would travel to Cuba only if its government made additional concessions in the areas of human rights, Internet access and market liberalization.” The President has said that “If I go on a visit, then part of the deal is that I get to talk to everybody. I’ve made very clear in my conversations directly with President Castro that we would continue to reach out to those who want to broaden the scope for, you know, free expression inside of Cuba.”

What does that mean? Will the President meet with the brave Ladies in White who have fought for freedom for years? Which courageous dissidents will he see? What does it mean to “reach out to those who want to broaden the scope for, you know, free expression,” to quote the President’s inartful words.

Not too hard to guess: a tame group of civil society types, some artists who have galleries catering to American tourists, some people who want the right to open new restaurants. The Cuban regime will never allow Obama to meet with “everybody,” and they will get away with it. They know that Obama is dying to make this trip and get his photo with Fidel, and that gives the police state the upper hand– just as it did throughout the Obama negotiations with Cuba.

Yes, the trip could be salvaged–if Obama had a “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” moment. Yes, if he directly demanded free elections, and an end to the one-party rule, and free expression, and free trade unions, and demanded that every single political prisoner be released immediately.

This visit is about the President’s vanity and search for a legacy, not about freedom and human rights for the people of Cuba. And that’s a disgrace.

Then she stopped campaigning for Democrats

Quintin George

This student was ashamed of her Republican father, until he said this

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican party.”

Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivers remarks at a town meeting at the South Church on May 27 in Portsmouth, N.H.

Mother Jonesdug up a 1972 essay that Bernie Sanders wrote for the Vermont Freeman, an alternative newspaper. The article, called, “Man-and-Woman,” is a commentary on gender roles. But it’s also caused a stir, as is bound to happen anytime a candidate mentions rape.

If you haven’t been following the hubbub, read on for a rundown of what the controversy is all about.

So what did Bernie Sanders write and what did he say about rape?The essay by the Vermont senator, who officially kicked off his presidential campaign this week, isn’t long — only a page. Warning: The bit about rape comes at the very beginning, as does some not-totally-safe-for-work language:

“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

“The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their ‘revolutionary’ political meeting.

“Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like ‘Girl 12 raped by 14 men’ sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?”

Sanders then goes on to explain his ideas about gender roles and eventually gets at a sharper point — that traditional gender roles help create troubling dynamics in men’s and women’s sex lives.

“Many women seem to be walking a tightrope,” he writes, as their “qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism.”

He adds that men, likewise, are confused:

“What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?”

One way to read the essay is that Sanders was doing (in a supremely ham-handed way) what journalists do every day: draw the reader in with an attention-getting lede, then get to the meat of the article in the middle. Though he only sticks to his larger point for three paragraphs before getting back to his fictional couple, ending the essay with an imagined conversation:

“And she said, ‘You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover…’

“And he said, ‘You’re full of ______.’

“And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never saw each other one more time.”

What has the Sanders campaign said?The Sanders campaign quickly tried to distance itself — and the candidate — from the 43-year-old essay. Campaign spokesman Michael Briggs called the essay a “dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication” in an interview with CNN, adding that it “in no way reflects his views or record on women.” He added, “It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the ’70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then.”

So what does this say about Sanders’ attitude toward women?You can draw divergent conclusions from the article itself. On the one hand, he’s talking about liberating people from harmful gender norms. On the other, with his nameless hypothetical “man-and-woman” characters, he also seems to imply that men fantasize about raping women or that women fantasize about being raped.

The 2016 presidential field has been quiet about it, but conservative Erick Erickson jeeredat Sanders supporters on Twitter.

“Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically.”

Rather than criticize Sanders for something he wrote long ago, Cooke added, “until I see any sign of actual wrongdoing I’d much prefer to slam Sanders for his dangerous and ridiculous politics than to delve back into his past and embarrass him with a long-forgotten opinion.”

Looking at his political life, it’s true that Sanders’ record shows an ongoing concern for women’s rights. Katie McDonough at left-leaning Salon.com compiled a list of measures Sanders has supported or sponsored to protect women from violence and sexual assault.

Are there any lessons to draw from this?Absolutely: if you’re a politician — especially on the national level — everything you’ve ever written, said, or done can, and likely will, be dredged up for all the world to inspect and critique.

It’s not the first time writings from long ago have resurfaced to be used against a candidate. Republican Bob McDonnell’s 20-year-old thesisabout his views on women was also used as a cudgel against him in his bid for governor of Virginia in 2009.

When Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s name began to surface as a potential vice-presidential candidate in 2012, the political world began writing about his 1994 essayabout an exorcism he says he witnessed. (See hereand here.) That, by the way, is sure to come up again if he runs in 2016 or any time in the future.

Many candidates have also faced plagiarism charges, like Democratic Sen. John Walsh of Montana, who dropped out of his re-election race last year after the New York Times reportedhe had lifted portions of the final paper he wrote to get his master’s degree.

Vice President Joe Biden admitted in 1987 to cribbing a speech from a British politician, but said it wasn’t”malevolent.” In 2008, the Clinton campaign accused Barack Obama of lifting linesfrom his friend, then-Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

It’s not just elected officials — consider the flap over past comments in which now-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor described herself as a “wise Latina.” It’s not plagiarism or an affair, but it created a headachefor her during confirmation hearings.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 2011-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations’ PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals’ immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so.Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Pope: Trump Is ‘Not Christian’

Pope Francis forcefully injected himself into the U.S. presidential campaign on Thursday, assailing Republican candidate Donald Trump’s views on U.S. immigration as “not Christian” in a sign of growing international concern at the billionaire businessman’s election prospects.

Trump struck back. No stranger to controversy, the longtime party front-runner in national opinion polls dismissed the leader of the world’s Roman Catholics as “disgraceful” for questioning his faith. He said he was a proud Christian.

Francis told reporters during a free-wheeling conversation on his flight home from a visit to Mexico, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”

Trump has accused Mexico of sending rapists and drug runners across the United States’ southern border and has vowed if elected president to build a wall to keep out immigrants who enter illegally.

It was not the first time U.S. allies have voiced concern over comments by Trump.

More than half a million Britons signed a petition to bar him from entering Britain, where he has business interests, in response to his call to ban Muslims from entering the United States. British lawmakers decided against a ban as a violation of free speech.

Asked if American Catholics should vote for someone with Trump’s views, Francis said, “I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

It remained to be seen if the pope’s comments would strengthen Trump in the run-up to the Nov. 8 election. Trump’s swipes at rival candidates and heated exchanges with others have bolstered his standing in nominating contests and opinion polls.

One of Trump’s rivals, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, said he would not question anyone’s relationship with God. But Bush, a Catholic, said, “It only enables bad behavior when someone from outside our country talks about Donald Trump.”

ISLAMIC STATE

Trump, a real estate developer and former reality TV show host, said, “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.”

Trump was in South Carolina, which on Saturday will hold a Republican nominating contest.

He said that in Mexico the pope heard one side of the story and did not see what Trump called the crime, drug trafficking and negative economic impact Mexico’s policies had on the United States.

Thomas Groome, director of the Boston College Center on the Church in the 21st Century, said Francis’ comments were entirely in keeping with his focus on mercy.

“The pope is commissioned to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s his job,” Groome said. “So when he was asked a direct question, he gave Trump the benefit of the doubt, he said we have to be sure he said this, but if he said this, it is not Christian.”

“People often think, ‘You can’t question my faith,’ but of course we can …,” Groome said. “There are rules … we call them commandments and if you deny them or ignore them you can’t just say, ‘I’m a good Christian.'”

Groome called Trump’s suggestion that Islamic State militants would target the Vatican egregious. “Now it becomes a challenge to ISIS,” he said.

Patrick Hornbeck, chairman of the department of theology at Fordham University in New York, said Francis’ words were not surprising given the poverty he had just seen in Mexico.

“There is very little common ground between Pope Francis and Donald Trump,” Hornbeck said. He predicted the pope’s words on electoral politics would have little effect on any U.S. Catholics who liked Trump as a candidate.

“Those who are in favor of Trump already will see this as confirmation of why they favor him and those who oppose him are going to see this as a confirmation of why they oppose him.”

‘A POLITICAL PERSON’

Trump has said he would deport millions of illegal immigrants if he wins the White House. Last week, responding to the pope’s plan to visit the U.S.-Mexican border, he said Pope Francis did not understand the issues.

“The pope is a very political person … I don’t think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico,” Trump told the Fox Business Network last week.

Asked about being called a “political person”, Francis said on Thursday, “Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ So at least I am a human person.”

Republican Catholics appear to support Trump more than other Republicans do, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll. It shows 43 percent of likely Republican Catholic voters support Trump, compared to 38 percent of Republican voters generally.

The Pew Research Center has said 71 percent of the U.S. population identifies as Christian. This includes the 21 percent of the U.S. population that identifies as Catholic.

The pope was winning the social media battle on Thursday with overall sentiment for Trump negative and for Francis positive, according to social media analytic firm Zoomph. Author Dan Dicker @Dan_Dicker tweeted, “Let’s see @realDonaldTrump insult his way out of this.”

Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell Jr., who has endorsed Trump, described him as generous to his employees and family, adding, “I’m convinced he’s a Christian. I believe he has faith in Jesus Christ.”

Marco Rubio has supported amnesty for illegal immigrants in several interviews on Spanish television, while speaking against it on the campaign trail and in Saturday’s Republican debate in South Carolina, the vice chairman of the Republican Party of Miami-Dade County in Florida said Thursday.

“My fellow Miamian wants to have it both ways,” Manny Roman wrote in an op-ed pieceat Breitbart News. “He wants to do the rounds on Spanish media pandering to their viewers and then go in front of the American people, in English … and pretend to hold a conservative position on immigration.”

Roman, who also is Hispanic-American, said that Rubio touted amnesty in these interviews on Univision, the large Spanish-language cable television network:

Last April, he said that he would not immediately rescind President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive order creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program because it helped many people. “I wouldn’t undo it [DACA] immediately, as it is already benefiting a lot of people,” he said.

In discussing the Gang of Eight bill in June 2013, Rubio said that “first comes legalization of those here illegally, then comes border security.” He added that legalization was not conditional.

In the same interview, the senator said that “the vast majority of Republicans in Congress and throughout the country support a pathway to citizenship.”

During the Senate vote on the Gang of Eight bill in 2013, Rubio said that not granting citizenship to illegal immigrants currently in the United States was immoral because it “would create two tiers of residents in this country.” He added that he would lobby his “conservative colleagues in Congress hard” to get the amnesty bill passed.

Does Bernie Sanders Know What He’s Doing?

by Pachacutec

Bernie Sanders is taking a lot of heat for making promises everyone agrees can’t be achieved in today’s Washington. However, Sanders is not just smoking free-love-sixties-dope when he talks about universal health care, free college tuition, stopping deportations, and drastically cutting the prison population.

I used to teach negotiation to MBA students and lawyers seeking CLE credit, and have included negotiation content in executive coaching and other consulting work I do. One of the things I’ve sometimes taught was how to use audience effects to gain leverage in negotiations. The best story I know to illustrate this comes from Gandhi, from his autobiography.

Gandhi Rides First Class

Gandhi’s early years as an activist led him to South Africa, where he advocated as a lawyer for the rights of Indians there. One discriminatory law required “coolie” Indians to ride third class on trains. Soon after arriving in South Africa, Gandhi himself had been thrown off a train for seating himself in first class.

Looking for a way to challenge the law, he dressed flawlessly and purchased a first class ticket face to face from an agent who turned out to be a sympathetic Hollander, not a Transvaaler. Boarding the train, Gandhi knew the conductor would try to throw him off, so he very consciously looked for and found a compartment where an English, upper class gentleman was seated, with no white South Africans around. He politely greeted his compartment mate and settled into his seat for the trip.

Sure enough, when the conductor came, he immediately told Gandhi to leave. Gandhi presented his ticket, and the conductor told him it didn’t matter, no coolies in first class. The law was on his side. But the English passenger intervened, “What do you mean troubling this gentleman? Don’t you see he has a first class ticket? I don’t mind in the least his traveling with me.” He turned to Gandhi and said, “You should make yourself comfortable where you are.”

The conductor backed down. “If you want to ride with a coolie, what do I care?”

And that, my friends, illustrates the strategic use of creating an audience effect to gain leverage in a negotiated conflict. The tactic can be applied in any negotiated conflict where an outside stakeholder party can be made aware of the conflict and subsequently influence its outcome.

It’s the Conflict, Stupid

A couple of weeks ago, members of the neoliberal wonkosphereand others in the punditclasstut-tutted, fretted, and wearily explained to Sanders’ band of childish fools and hippies that his “theory of change” was wrong. Well, not merely wrong, but deceptive, deceitful, maybe even dangerous. False hopes, stakes are too high, and all that. This was Clinton campaign, and more to the point, political establishment ideology, pushback. When Ezra Klein starts voxsplaining how to catalyze a genuine social, cultural, and political movement, you know you’ve entered the land of unfettered bullshit.

These movements operate by forcing conflict out into the open, on favorable terms and on favorable ground. Make the malignancy of power show its face in daylight. Gandhi and the salt march. MLK and the Selma to Montgomery marches. FDR picking fights and catalyzing popular support throughout theNew Dealera, starting with the first 100 days. OWS changed American language and political consciousness by cementing the frame of the 1% into the lexicon. BLM reminded America who it has been and still is on the streets of Ferguson.

One FDR snippet is instructive to consider in light all these discussions–and dismissals–of Sanders’ “theory of change.” As FDR watched progressive legislation be struck down by a majority conservative court, he famously proposed legislation that would have allowed him to add another justice. He failed,but:

This was a constitutional overreach by FDR, and it caused him political damage, but forcing the conflict created pressure on the Court, making its actions highly visible to the mass of people who wanted change, who voted for change, but did not always see or understand how the elite establishment acts to thwart change.

Your Mistakes are My Ladder

The paths to change for all of these movements are neither linear nor predictable. By nature, they act like guerilla movements. They force conflict and force an entrenched enemy into the open. Then, once exposed and vulnerable, the guerilla tactic is to attack opportunistically on strategically favorable ground. In peaceful social movements, “winning” means winning the hearts and minds of the majority of the society’s stakeholders to the point where they actively choose sides. First make them witnesses, then convert them into participants in the conflict. That’s exactly what Gandhi did with the Englishman in the first class compartment.

This is why calls from pundits and Camp Clinton for Bernie to lay out the fifteen point plan of how he gets from here to there are, at best, naïve. The social revolution playbook requires creating cycles of conflict and contrast, taking opportunistic advantage of your opponent’s mistakes. No one can predict with certainty where and how those opportunities will arise, though you can choose where to poke. If the Clinton campaign wants to know how Bernie can run that playbook in action, it need only review its own performance campaigning against him.

Does Sanders Have a Plan?

So, is Bernie Sanders the underpants gnomeof political change? Is his theory “1) Call for revolution 2) ????? 3) Profit!”? Or does he have something else–some other historical precedents–in mind? Everything I hear and see from the Sanders campaign suggests the latter.

Take a look at this ad from Sanders:

To me, this ad says that Sanders understands very clearly what kind of coalition and movement he needs to ignite to accomplish the vision he’s putting out in his campaign. It’s an aspirational vision, sure. And neither he nor any movement he helps create can or will accomplish all of it, just as FDR was unable to accomplish all he set out to achieve. Still, accomplishing as much as FDR did, relatively speaking, would be pretty damn good. Democrats used to say they liked that sort of thing.

Or how about this ad, where Sanders is introduced by Erica Garner explicitly as a “protestor,” invoking the lineage of MLK:

Yes, I’d say Sanders has a very clear, and historically grounded “theory of change.” What those who question it’s validity are really saying is either: 1) they lack imagination and can’t’ see beyond the status quo; 2) they lack knowledge of history, including American history, or; 3) they understand Sanders’ “theory of change” very well and want to choke it in the crib as quickly as they can.

They may succeed. Elites may beat Sanders himself but they will not beat the movement he’s invigorating but did not create. However, saying Sanders may fail is not the same as saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing, or that what he’s setting out to accomplish is impossible.

Republicans may be ready for a fling with Donald Trump, but a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows they have reservations about installing him in the White House.

Fifty percent of Americans, including 31% of Republicans, say Trump would make a “poor” or “terrible” president.

His possible bid faces broad resistance: 63% of Americans, including 46% of Republicans, say they definitely will not vote for Trump for president.In comparison, 46% of Americans say they definitely will not vote for President Obama — significantly lower but itself a hurdle to winning the 2012 election.

Obama Won’t Attend Scalia Funeral

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will not attend the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, The Hill reports.
The Obamas do plan to pay their respects Friday when Scalia’s body will lie in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building, but the funeral on Saturday at Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception will be attended by Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
Earnest did not give a reason the Obama’s would not be attending the funeral for the Reagan appointee who died Saturday at the age of 79.

Scalia was one of the court’s most conservative members, and his unexpected death set off an instant public battle between the left and right, with Democrats insisting Obama should name his own choice to replace Scalia and Republicans vowing not to confirm an Obama appointment with only 11 months left in his term.
Republicans say the next president, who they hope will be a member of their own party, should have the chance to make the nomination. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is hoping to be sitting in the Oval Office himself on January 20, but has said he will filibuster any Obama nominee while he still has his current job.
The president says he intends to send a nominee to the Senate and urged Republicans to act on it.
The last member of the high court to die was Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005. At that time, Politico notes, then-President George W. Bush attended the funeral and also gave a eulogy.
News that Obama would not attend the funeral was just as divisive as the argument over Scalia’s replacement, with people on Twitter noting which funerals Obama has attended while in office – and which he hasn’t.

Did Antonin Scalia Ignore Life-Threatening Warning Signs?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may have missed life-threatening warning signs that could have saved his life, a top doctor says.
“Too often, heart attacks that kill people while they are asleep are thought to have come on ‘out of the blue,’ but most often there are warning signs that are overlooked,” says Dr. Chauncey Crandall.
Scalia, 79, was found dead Saturday morning, after spending the previous day on a quail hunting expedition and attending a private party. He left the party early and, while news accounts differ, some quote friends as saying he told them he wasn’t feeling well.
Although Scalia appeared vigorous, he had a history of heart trouble, high blood pressure, and was recently considered too weak to undergo surgery for a shoulder problem, according to US News & World Report.
“A heart attack resulting in the stoppage of the heart is known as sudden cardiac death. This can happen at night during sleep, like with Justice Scalia, but it can also happen while people are awake, which is what happened to James Gandolfini,” notes Dr. Crandall, chief of the cardiac transplant program at the Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic. The actor died in 2013 while on a trip to Italy.ABC Newsreports that Scalia’s relatives and doctors knew about his health conditions, but experts say the fact that the concerns were kept from the public is in keeping with the practices of the court.
Unlike the White House, which regularly releases updates on the president’s health, the Supreme Court does not have set guidelines regarding what they do and don’t disclose publicly.
About 325,000 people die from sudden cardiac death each year, which is the largest cause of death in the U.S. It occurs when a heart attack stops blood flow to the heart, which causes the heart to beat too quickly and irregularly, and it ultimately stops, notes Dr. Crandall, chief of the cardiac transplant program at the renowned Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic.

Special:Barbara Walters Refuses to Return to the View, Due to This Secret
“We used to think that sudden cardiac death occurred suddenly but now we know that most people experience symptoms. Unfortunately, too many people ignore them. I know this from what I’ve seen in my practice, and now there are studies that back this up,” notes Dr. Crandall, author of the Heart Health Report.
He points to a recent study that found 50 percent of people suffering cardiac arrest had experienced symptoms during the month before the attack, which then reoccurred during the 24-hour period before it. Most of the patients ignored the symptoms, but those who called 911 were most likely to survive, says the study, which is published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This study followed previous research done on Oregon men. Among 567 men who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 53 percent had symptoms prior to the cardiac arrest. Of those with symptoms, 56 percent had chest pain, 13 percent had shortness of breath, and 4 percent had dizziness, fainting, or palpitations. Almost 80 percent of the symptoms occurred between four weeks and one hour before the sudden cardiac arrest, this study found.
“Justice Scalia spent the day exerting himself and then, feeling poorly, he excused himself. He may have had chest pain, or he may have just been feeling ill, nauseous and sweaty. No doubt he didn’t recognize what was happening, but if he only had, and summoned help, he might have been saved,” says Dr. Crandall.
Read more: Did Antonin Scalia ignore warning signs of the sudden cardiac arrest that killed him?

The Death of Antonin Scalia and the Future of the Supreme Court
For conservatives still adjusting to the shock of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent death, an ugly reality just got uglier: there is now the prospect of a Democratic president nominating four, instead of three, Supreme Court justices over the course of the next five years.
Scalia’s untimely departure is an immediate conundrum for which the primary conservative strategy would appear to be “delay, delay, delay,” as candidate Donald Trump argued for during the South Carolina Republican presidential debate recently.
The good news is that Barack Obama would likely only get one shot at a nomination during his remaining time in office. The Republican-controlled Senate can stall the nominee confirmation process indefinitely, but there’s a risk of Republicans losing control of the Senate in the fall elections. And the last thing Senators whose seats may be up for grabs want is the politicization of delaying nominee confirmation hearings.
**Sponsor**
These $25 “Retirement Notes” Could Save Your Retirement
We recently discovered a strange website.
It lets you invest in little-known $25 investment notes that pay interest rates as high as 28.99%.
If you buy enough of them, you could collect thousands every month.Click here to find out how to access this site.

**End Sponsored Content**

The specter of the failed nomination of Robert Bork by President Reagan in 1987 (presided over by then-Senator Joe Biden) looms large over the near future, as Obama has 10 and a half months to advance and attempt to wrangle a candidate through hearings — if he actually chooses to nominate a candidate. Will conservatives attempt to use the same obstructionist playbook on his pick that Senate Democrats used on Bork?
This may depend on who a possible nominee might be, despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s and other Republicans’ insistence that Obama should refrain from choosing a replacement for Scalia during his last year in office. It’s been 28 years since the last time a second-term lame-duck president had his Supreme Court nominee confirmed in his final year (Marco Rubio and others have stated the timeframe as more than 80 years, but this is incorrect).
The real issue is that, despite all vows by both parties to the contrary, the nomination process, particularly at the Supreme Court level, has gotten more and more political over the past decades, with presidential candidates now openly speaking of a “litmus test” on positions ranging from abortion to health care before potential nominees are considered.
The problem is that tactic hasn’t always worked out too well in the past, as appointees David Souter and John Paul Stevens during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford turned out to take increasingly liberal positions in their decisions once they were comfortably ensconced in their Supreme Court chambers.
Scalia, a towering figure not just to conservatives but to the entire American legal profession, was known for stoking controversy by sticking to his guns on many positions by way of what is now referred to as “originalism” — a legal philosophy of defending the original meaning and intention of the Constitution as it was written.
The essence of originalism is adhering to the Constitution’s text without drifting into interpretation or imposing one’s personal convictions. So zealously did Scalia believe in and espouse this ideology (despite veering from it on a few instances) that legal scholars and students now treat this idea with profound respect and admiration.
Some even say this idea preserves and perpetuates the value of the Constitution; even liberally-leaning law students and professors have taken it to heart as a valid, important doctrine. In this way, Scalia’s legacy on the court is colossal.
Scalia’s trouble was that in so passionately defending his beliefs, he made more foes than supporters of his positions (although by all accounts he was affable and personally well-liked). And so while he was respected, his pugnaciousness was not necessarily appreciated in Washington.
Still, Scalia was one of the key keepers of the conservative flame on the court for the last 30 years, insisting that the Constitution makes no mention of abortion or gay marriage, and therefore, to proactively legislate from the bench on these issues was wrong. He stood firmly against affirmative action. Scalia was a key dissenter on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare judgment (which Chief Justice Roberts shamefully waffled on, allowing it to be enacted).
In fact, Scalia was known more as a dissenter than the writer of majority opinions, due to his iconoclasm, rather than consensus building, during his tenure. At the same time, he cast a crucial vote on key 5-4 decisions such as the Obergefell vs. Hodges case which legalized gay marriage and the overturning of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which allowed Southern states to change their election laws without federal approval.
After Scalia, the court becomes — for the time being — tied 4-4 ideologically, which, in the case of split decisions, preserves the judgments of lower courts, thus negating any power of the Court to overrule in key upcoming cases on abortion, immigration and labor rights in the coming months.
If Obama does succeed in having a new Justice confirmed before the end of his term, the Democrats have a good shot at upending the ideological balance of the Court, at least for the time being.
But in the long term, the prospects for them grow more attractive if they win the 2016 presidency. That’s because Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are thought to be at risk of retiring soon, creating additional vacancies in the court that the next president may likely fill.
This outlook is both uncomfortable and disturbing for conservatives, as the short-term advantage that the Democrats could have may stretch out to be a long-term one, potentially lasting for decades instead of years, since Supreme Court appointments are for a lifetime.
This makes the 2016 presidential election even more important, especially if Obama succeeds in getting a nominee confirmed before the end of his term. With each additional Democrat appointment, hopes for conservative-leaning judgments fade, and the court will appear to be stacked more and more in favor of liberal positions. As many conservative pundits have stated, this could have profound ramifications on gun ownership, abortion, gay rights and immigration.
On gun laws alone, the prospect looms large that interpretations could go against Scalia’s argument of the Second Amendment as an individual right (as other sections in the Bill of Rights have been judged to be), rather than a collective right.
This means that “the right to bear arms” would be seen as valid only in cases of militias, rather than individual gun ownership. Individuals’ gun rights as we know them could change — or even be outlawed in their entirety. This and other alterations in the Court’s views could mean changes to fundamental freedoms that many Americans take for granted.
Another area where the court could impose limits in the short term is campaign financing. The validity of the Citizens United decision that allows wealthy donors to fund conservative candidates through Super-PACs could be impacted. If candidate financing is indeed overhauled, the political landscape might witness a sea change that would roll back progress conservatives have made at local levels. Presidential elections in the future could look fundamentally different.
These and other potential decisions by the nation’s highest court should give conservatives long pause before they think about throwing in the towel on the 2016 elections at any phase. It’s worth considering that some polls show only Marco Rubio (not Donald Trump) having a decisive advantage over either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee in November.
One of the only saving graces may be that it’s a long-held tradition of the Supreme Court (and other courts) not to plainly revisit significant decisions in the short term, regardless of who the sitting Justices may be at the time. This tradition may ultimately be the only comfort for Republicans in a worst-case scenario come November.
Regards,

Mark Patricks

Watch this free video now to see what you must do differently to get results on your very next workout.

Young Bernistas Blighting Their Own Future

The hidden cost to all those youngsters clamoring to hear Santa Bernie lies in the future loss of jobs and the resultant loss of—or reduction in—future income.

The young, enthused by the Sanders-as-Santa sales pitch, aren’t sufficiently educated to know socialism’s cost to them (“Democrats’ Shift Left Aids Sanders,” page one, Feb. 8). Socialism isn’t about solving underlying problems and making the necessities of life more affordable. Rather, socialism treats the symptoms of society’s economic ills by addressing who will pay for those high costs. Thus, “tax the rich” and “tax the corporations” are the progressive politician’s answers to how to pay for free college, but the progressive never proposes a solution to the problem of the excessive cost of a college education.

The hidden cost to all those youngsters clamoring to hear Santa Bernie lies in the future loss of jobs and job opportunities for them and the resultant loss of—or reduction in—future income and wealth accumulation when the so-called rich and corporations take their proverbial ball and go play elsewhere.

Eventually, a chasm erupts within a once-cohesive country. This is what’s happening all throughout Europe. Even during periods of global economic growth, socialist countries experience slower GDP growth and higher unemployment rates than the U.S. Who does this hurt? Not the rich.

Andrew Glickler

Plano, Texas

Socialism is the reason behind the very slow recovery from our last recession. Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare and increases in minimum wage are actually hindering our recovery and preventing creation of new, higher-paying jobs. The socialist experiment has been tried and failed miserably so many times that one would think people would learn. However, I am afraid Americans will have to experience for themselves the total ruin that socialism brings before they will move on. I have already experienced this in 1980s Poland and don’t care to repeat it again.

Anna Howland

St. Johns, Fla.

Bernie Sanders is writing an exciting new chapter in America’s political history by energizing voters, not all of whom are young and inexperienced, with a bold and boldly expressed progressive platform. Mr. Sanders’s view of the American crucible is dark, the chiaroscuro of his political palette relying exclusively on the light of progressive solutions to balance the shadows of his pessimism. I haven’t witnessed such enthusiasm since the heady days of Eugene McCarthy and the challenge he mounted to a sitting president of his own party who was prosecuting the Vietnam War.

Mr. Sanders appeals for our support by absolving us personally for any disappointments we have suffered. We aren’t to blame. It isn’t you, it isn’t me, it is that wealthy guy behind the tree. Let’s have confiscatory marginal income-tax rates and add new taxes, and let’s use the labor of the wealthy to lessen our burdens. What do we do when the money we tax away runs out? Bernie wants us to believe that the free lunch will never end.

Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin said presidential front-runner Donald Trump sounded like a “radical kook” at Saturday’s GOP debate on CBS after he made comments blaming former president George W. Bush for 9/11 and saying he intentionally lied about weapons of mass destruction, The Right Scoop reports.

“If George Bush went to war in Iraq and was lying about weapons of mass destruction there could not be a worse thing a president of the United States could do, or human being for that matter,” Levin said on his radio show Monday.
“There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And he was not responsible for 9/11,” Levin continued, defending the former president’s time as commander-in-chief. He added that Ronald Reagan would have never said the things Trump said at the debate.

“To have the leading Republican nominee for president of the United States make these statements … To have him praised for what he said? Terrible. Absolutely terrible. You and I’ve lived through this. You and I have lived through this. This isn’t distant history.”

Levin added that after Saturday’s debate, Trump scored an endorsement by Code Pink, a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives.

“He’s been praised by Code Pink — He should be praised by Code Pinkand every kook organization out there and every left-wing kook organization that hates America.”

MOST POPULAR TODAY: 1018 COMMENTS – “Millennial Wave Unsettles Presidential Race” By JANET HOOK – AGAIN, THE NATIONAL YOUTH VOTE GOES TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND REPUBLICANS MAY STAY HOME. THIS SPELLS THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IN 2017.

Millennial Wave Unsettles Presidential Race

Results in early contests show young voters are a concern for both Republicans and establishment DemocratsJOURNAL

This year’s election cycle marks a generational turning point. For the first time, millennials will match baby boomers as a share of the electorate.

There are messages for both parties in polling data about the generation born after 1980. For Republicans who think millennials will outgrow their liberal tilt in the last two presidential contests: Don’t count on it. For establishment Democrats who hope Hillary Clinton can inherit Barack Obama’s young followers: Don’t take it for granted.

Those cautionary notes were clear in the results from Iowa and New Hampshire, and in interviews with voters like Alison Sanderlin, who was raised in a conservative town in rural Virginia. She says as a college student she was put off by GOP stands on social issues and cast her first vote for president for Mr. Obama. Now 26 years old, with a job in a photo lab and student debt to pay, she still thinks the GOP message falls flat.

But she isn’t enamored with Democratic front-runner Mrs. Clinton either, because of her shifting positions on important issues. So she is backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.“He doesn’t seem to have ulterior motives,” she says.

Many like-minded millennials participated in the Iowa caucuses, where 17- to 29-year-olds favored Mr. Sanders over Mrs. Clinton by an overwhelming 84% to 14%. In New Hampshire, young voters favored Mr. Sanders by a nearly identical 83% to 16%.

About half of millennials—who like boomers account for 31% of eligible voters—don’t identify with either party, though polling data about them suggest they are more liberal than their parents are now, and more liberal than younger generations were just a few decades ago.

Yet any millennial advantage for Democrats will matter only if young people are motivated and turn out to vote, which may be easier said than done. A poll by Harvard’s Institute of Politics late last year found that young voters, who are always less inclined to vote than their elders, are more disengaged in politics than they were just four years ago.

For many, the ardor for Mr. Obama has cooled over his two terms, and it isn’t clear that Mrs. Clinton, if she is the nominee, can engender the enthusiasm among young people that Mr. Sanders has or Mr. Obama once did. Sensing an opening, Republican candidates are trying to move in.

In the Iowa caucuses, the two youngest candidates in the GOP field drew the most support from young voters. Entrance polls indicated that Sen. Ted Cruz, 45, pulled 27% of the under-30 vote, and Sen. Marco Rubio, 44, drew 24%, while businessman Donald Trump got 19%. In the New Hampshire GOP primary, the antiestablishment candidates did best with young voters, with Mr. Trump winning 37%, and Mr. Cruz, 16%.

ENLARGE

The Democratic Party is facing the historically difficult task of holding the White House for a third term, something that has happened only once in the last seven decades.

Democrats are counting on young people as a key to help Mrs. Clinton overcome negative feelings many other voters—particularly older white males—have about her. According to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the only age group that views Mrs. Clinton more positively than negatively is 18- to 34-year old bracket.

In any case, millennials are distinctive on a variety of fronts, as seen in a 2014 Pew Research Center study. It found them:

The most ethnically diverse generation in U.S. history. Some 43% are nonwhite, compared with 28% of baby boomers.

Less religious than their elders. Some 35% aren’t religiously affiliated, compared with 17% of boomers.

Slower to marry. Twenty-six percent were married between ages 18 to 33, down from 48% of that age bracket in 1980.

The Republican Party has traditionally drawn its greatest support from white, religious, married people with traditional values.

“The groups Republicans do well with, these are all demographic traits that are shrinking among millennials,” says Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster who has been studying millennials for years and discusses them in her book, “The Selfie Vote.” “It spells bad news for Republicans.”

In 1980, 18- to 29-year-olds divided almost equally between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Four years later, they picked Mr. Reagan over Walter Mondale, and then George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis. When millennials first began voting, in 2000, 18- to 29-year-olds split almost evenly between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

But beginning in 2004, when they chose John Kerry over Mr. Bush, young people have tilted Democratic. In 2008, Mr. Obama won that age group by 34 percentage points, and in 2012, by 23 points.

For the coming election, 60% of 18- to 34-year-olds indicated that they preferred a Democrat to win the White House, and 27% indicated Republican, according to latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

In the 2014 midterm elections, the turnout among millennials didn’t match that of other age groups—a typical pattern with young voters. Moreover, Democrats didn’t win as large a percentage of them as two years earlier.

That points to the nagging question for Democrats: whether their recent advantage has been mostly a result of President Obama’s millennial appeal.

Democrats profess confidence that their edge among young voters will outlast Mr. Obama. Republicans see opportunity to make gains because millennials are far less attached to traditional political parties than their elders.

“Obama had this ability to mobilize young people. They bought into him as a person,” says Raffi Williams, a Republican National Committee official who is working on a program to expand the party’s outreach to millennials. “Without Obama there, we are coming onto equal ground trying to win over young voters.’’

Republican presidential candidates have several important dates ahead, where many delegates will be won or lost. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains why two days in March could make or break several contenders. Photo: AP

Both parties are watching millennials carefully because young people are seen as shaping debate on social issues such as gay marriage and racial diversity.

“I kind of hate to say it,” says GOP pollster Bill McInturff, “but the millennial generation is now important. Their views are becoming the dominant public views. Their attitudes about gay marriage and social tolerance are radically different than the previous generations, and they are restructuring our views.”

The shift among young voters on social issues cuts across race and party. On gay rights, 64% of millennial Republicans believe homosexuality should be accepted in society, compared with 45% of baby boomer Republicans, according to the 2014 Pew Research Center survey. On immigration, 57% of millennial Republicans say immigrants strengthen the country, compared with 39% of baby boomer Republicans.

Overall, when millennial Republicans were asked to describe their views in general terms, 31% say they are mostly or consistently conservative, compared with nearly two-thirds of baby-boomer Republicans.

Economic issues don’t cut clearly in either party’s favor. Young voters have experienced an economy shadowed by debt—the government’s and their own.

Many millennials entered the workforce in the throes of the 2008 financial crisis and the slow-growth period that followed.

For Chase Hagaman, 27, of Portsmouth, N.H., the $250,000 debt he carries from college and law school is one factor in his and his wife’s decision to postpone having children. Mr. Hagaman works for the Concord Coalition, a group that advocates for federal-deficit reduction. He brought his concerns to a New Hampshire town hall meeting of Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

“We should be electing individuals willing to confront fiscal issues,” he said in an interview.

Pete Lashier, a 19-year-old marketing student at Iowa State University, says fiscal issues are a priority.

“We’re in a huge hole that could end up as something my generation has to be responsible for,’’ says Mr. Lasher, who says he is inclined to vote Republican. “I’m not super pumped up about that.”

College debt is a concern for many young voters.

“I have almost $20,000 in loans, and I’m only a sophomore,” says Zach Rodgers, 20, an Iowa State student who is working with the Clinton campaign and sees college affordability as a major issue among his peers. “Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, students are trying to get candidates to talk about it.”

Some GOP presidential candidates have been looking for an opening in the economic pressures that millennials feel.

“The consequences of Obama’s agenda have really come home to roost” for young people, Mr. Cruz of Texas told a college audience in New Hampshire in January.

Mr. Rubio is the youngest major GOP candidate and the one most explicitly pitching his message to younger voters. He drops references to hip-hop artists and has held campaign events to focus on the millennial-driven “sharing economy.” He talks frequently about his own student loan debt. In January he launched a video ad targeted at millennial voters.

For the Republican front-runner, Mr. Trump, the growing millennial vote cuts two ways.

Some younger voters like his unscripted style. “He’s the most honest candidate we’ve ever had,” says Robbie Maass, 34, a Republican farmer from Ellsworth, Iowa. “His antics have garnered a younger audience to take a look at the Republican Party more than they normally would.”

But his anti-immigration stands pose a risk of alienating young voters and making it difficult in a general election to win the large cohort of Hispanic millennials. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 69% of Hispanic voters overall viewed Mr. Trump negatively, and 22% positively. Among all ethnicities, the poll found that 18- to 34-year-olds are the least likely age group to view Mr. Trump favorably, with only 17% rating him positively.

For Mrs. Clinton, the results in Iowa and New Hampshire reveal that she has much work to do to win over millennials. She has succeeded with Mikayla Bodey, 20, a student at Ohio State University. Ms. Bodey says she had been interested in Mr. Kasich, whose record as Ohio’s Republican governor she admired. Then she heard Mrs. Clinton speak at a Columbus rally about the importance of women’s rights. When she met the candidate on the rope line, Ms. Bodey says, she wept with emotion and left the event torn about whom to support.

She is now committed to Mrs. Clinton, she says, because of the tone and rightward tack of the GOP candidates. “I feel like they are not speaking to me anymore,” she says.

But as Iowa and New Hampshire revealed, Mr. Sanders is something of a campus phenom, even though, at 74, he is the oldest candidate on the campaign trail. Much of early Mr. Sanders’s fundraising success was the handiwork of a 24-year old who built a popular fan forum for him on Reddit.

Ms. Sanderlin, the 26-year-old from Richmond, Va., says she is supporting Mr. Sanders because he has been consistent on his positions through a long career in politics, while Mrs. Clinton shifted on issues such as gay marriage and the Iraq war. “I feel like she has changed her mind on things because that is what is popular for Democrats right now,” says Ms. Sanderlin.

John Della Volpe, who as director of polling at the Harvard Institute of Politics has been surveying millennials since 2000, says young voters generally seem less interested in politicians’ résumés than in their candor.

“Young people are really less interested in past accomplishments and more interested in today and the future,” he says. “They look for candidates who are focusing emotion, talking about the moment, being authentic.”

Quintin George

After the conclusion of the GOP presidential debate on Saturday, which was hosted by CBS News, I described Donald Trump’s performance as unhinged, angry and liberal after he praised Planned Parenthood and accused President George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq war.

Last night on his radio show, Mark Levin didn’t mince words when describing Trump’s debate performance.

“The fact that Donald Trump attacked George W. Bush, not because of his liberal domestic policies, not because he expanded Medicare, not because he was weak on the First Amendment, not because of those things, expanded government, increased the debt, was for comprehensive immigration reform, but the fact that he attacked George Bush as a Commander-in-Chief…not because he disagreed with him but he attacked him as a liar who knew there were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and said he was responsible for 9/11 and he was responsible for those towers coming down,” Levin said. “Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I posted on my Facebook page ‘This guy sounds like CodePink!'”

“He sounds like a radical kook,” Levin continued. “All the rest aside, I know too many gold star families who lost sons over there to hear this 9/11 truther crap which is pretty close to it. Pretty damn close to it.”

Not only did Trump sound like CodePink over the weekend, the radical progressive group retweeted him yesterday.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh also said Monday Trump sounded like a liberal Democrat during some of his answers at the CBS debate.

“Here we are in a Republican primary, and Donald Trump, out of the blue, starts blaming the Bush family for 9/11, for knowing that the intelligence was made up, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction, and they knew it, Trump said,” Limbaugh said on his radio program. “Michael Moore doesn’t even say that.”

“On the stage at a Republican debate, Donald Trump defended Planned Parenthood. Not the abortion stuff, he said, but the fact that they do great things for women’s health,” Limbaugh continued. “Folks, there were a number of occasions where Donald Trump sounded like the Daily Kos blog, where Donald Trump sounded like the Democrat Underground, sounded like any average host on MSNBC.”

Obama is planning to use of a little-known legislative trick to appoint the next Supreme Court justice, and subsequently BYPASS Senate confirmation hearings.

Using an antiquated law, Obama will, with a stroke of a pen, use a ‘Recess Appointment’ to place anyone he wishes on to the Supreme Court… all without confirmation or approval of any kind by Congress!

However, appointments made in this matter expire at the end of the congressional session rather than continuing on to the lifetime of the post. This would not be the first time a President has appointed a Supreme Court justice without Congressional approval or confirmation of any type. The last President to do so was President Dwight D Eisenhower… the winning general World War II.

But the real threat is that there is NO limitation to how many times a President can reappoint the same seated Supreme Court justice! In Theory, the day of Senatorial confirmation of a Presidential appointee for the Supreme Court may be at its end!

Up until now, the practice of appointing and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is nomination by the President and then confirmation by the U.S. Senate. The confirmation, of course, is done in a series of hearings where the nominee is questioned and witnesses make statements as to the ability and character of the Supreme Court nominee.

Simply stated, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a unique opportunity for lame duck Obama. Obama can wield the power of the ‘Recess Appointment’and thereby trample ALL OVER the Constitution.

If this was just a simple appointment until the end of the Senatorial session, then the alarm may be muffled by simply waiting out the session, knowing the Constitution would once again take over. But it’s not, and Obama’s Recess Appointment could prove to be permanent!

To top it all off, the issues coming up before the Supreme Court are DAUNTING, to say the least.

Up until this point, the balance of power in the Supreme Court have been divided with five justices appointed by Republicans and four by Democrats, with Scalia being a strong conservative that has been the counterbalance against aggressive socialist thinking. Now, with his vitally counterbalance missing, Obama has a free hand to appoint whomever he wants!

Some people may be asking: ‘will Obama do such a thing?’ Think about this. Already, Harry Reid is pushing Obama to make a quick decision while most of the GOP candidates are saying; ‘let’s wait’.

Still, one GOP candidate is saying “yes” to Obama. Jeb Bush just came out and said “Obama has every right to nominate Scalia’s successor and urges him to pick a consensus candidate”… and scary statement indeed!

So far Obama has accomplished the seemingly impossible, capturing alive many in the GOP establishment old guard and turning them into ‘Yes Man’. With the help of the GOP establishment’s old guard, it may be possible Obama will skirt Senatorial confirmation not just one time but continually until his last day of office.

In fact, Congress MUST ACT quickly to stop this Obama overreach or our beloved Constitution will be shredded once again!

It appears ‘Recess Appointment’ may be the silver bullet that not only can destroy the conservative movement, but will prove to be the death knoll for the Constitution as well!